Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: How did Paul take the collection to Jerusalem?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: How did Paul take the collection to Jerusalem?
  • Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:45:42 -0500


Mark Nanos commented:

>>These references seem to imply that the monies (including gold,
silver, and other precious materials) were actually transported, but
that protection by Roman law was important for a voluntary association
or group of any kind which sought to undertake this kind of
activity.<<

Thanks for bringing up the issue! While I had thought of doing so, you
are better able to expound on the topic than I would be.

It should not automatically be assumed that Paul (or anyone, except an
"official" functionary) would be able to transport a sizeable sum
without risking confiscation by suspicious authorities. For awhile, as
you hinted, even the temple offerings were sometimes confiscated
despite the imperial stamp of approval. If I recall correctly, the
Jews' authority to do so was quite unique. The epistles offer not so
much as a hint of that possibility.

From what I am gathering, outside of the officially sanctioned (and
hence organized and instituted) temple offerings, banking activities
of the size that are suggested by the Pauline letters (and reinforced
by Acts) would seem to have been restricted to well-connected (read
"wealthy wheeler-dealer") types of the retainer class and made
available mainly to trading interests (as a means to ensure a flow of
hard to get goods for the ruling classes to conspicuously consume) or
struggling client princes (sort of to keep them in the pocket of the
ruling class, ready to be put to use at a minute's notice). I doubt
that "banks" for the common folks were developed even as much as the
informal "postal system" was. At best, it would function on the level
of personal guarantees between traders, clients, patrons and their
associates.

Does this mean you have been re-considering the question of whether
Paul was a bona-fide functionary of the temple "government?" The last
time you and I discussed this (off list, I think) it seemed you were
on the fence.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page